“OBJECTIVE: To map the fine-touch pressure thresholds of the adult penis in circumcised and uncircumcised men, and to compare the two populations. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Adult male volunteers with no history of penile pathology or diabetes were evaluated with a Semmes-Weinstein monofilament touch-test to map the fine-touch pressure thresholds of the penis. Circumcised and uncircumcised men were compared using mixed models for repeated data, controlling for age, type of underwear worn, time since last ejaculation, ethnicity, country of birth, and level of education… …CONCLUSIONS: The glans of the circumcised penis is less sensitive to fine touch than the glans of the uncircumcised penis. The transitional region from the external to the internal prepuce is the most sensitive region of the uncircumcised penis and more sensitive than the most sensitive region of the circumcised penis. Circumcision ablates the most sensitive parts of the penis.”

I think this study is important work which will go a long way toward establishing protections for all babies from genital mutilation. 94% of the world's population is protected by law from non-consensual genital cutting with no religious exemption, but only for females. With evidence like this study, we can make the compelling case that boys must be equally protected.

Zapan

I'm exactly of the same advice than TLCTugger.Non-integrist people need to stop mutilating their boys for a so called "esthetic" purpose.

And for the girls out there who think a nipped penis looks better, it is proved that women engaged with circumcised men are much more subject to vaginal dryness and infections, because the foreskin acts as a ballbearing during intercourse.Circumcised men also tend to like sodomy more, because of their insensitive glans.

Anonymous

Don't forget that whole significantly decreased risk of contracting HIV (and likely other viral STDs) in circumcised men thing. I'd think the importance of that should outweigh any of the aesthetic or pleasure differences.

"In 1999, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) issued a policy statement that says the benefits aren't strong enough to recommend routine circumcision for all male newborns. Today, the AAP leaves the decision up to parents — and supports use of pain relief for infants who have the procedure."

Lynn

In a very limited controlled trial (fine touch versus non-fine or no-touch), the conclusion of my circumcized husband,who was my only research subject, is that any kind of touch on any part of the adult penis is preferable to the lack thereof.

Larry & Jeanne

What you are saying is that all infant boys should have half of the skin of their penises cut off because some of them might not wear condoms when they grow up.

By the way, the studies on all the non-HIV STD's are in and there is no significant difference in the two groups. The reports on HIV are pretty bogus and the reported difference is essentially useless.

In fact, many countries that have essentially no circumcision have lower rates of HIV than the US (and higher rates of condom use).

cresur

First Anonymous, that's an extremely ignorant viewpoint.

All humans have a right to an intact body. When a boy is old enough to weigh the pros and cons of getting a circumcision in order to reduce his chances of getting an STD, then more power to him over whatever he chooses. Ideally, he'll chose a simple condom, which will be infinitely more effective and less aggressive.

Mutilating newborn babies who have no say in the matter in order to reduce the risk of STDS more than a decade later is simply absurd.

Controlling for level of education? Are high-school dropouts more or less sensitive than people with doctorates?

Hugh7

@Anonymous (2.39pm): "significant" has a technical meaning in statistics that is not the usual sense. It just means "unlikely to be due to chance". The reduction in HIV infection (from women to men only) is not nearly great enough to rely on, even if the African studies are correct, and the rarity of that means of infection in the US means that circumcision still fails any cost/benefit test.

@Anonymous (1:19am): level of education is a marker for other factors like wealth and hence health. In any such trial, the more alike your subjects are, except in what you are testing for, the better.

@Anonymous (5:17pm): After reviewing the latest evidence the Royal Australasian [Australia and New Zealand] College of Physicians has said:

"ethical concerns have focused on recognition of the functional role of the foreskin, the non-therapeutic nature of the operation, and the psychological distress felt by some adult males circumcised as infants. The possibility that routine circumcision contravenes human rights has been raised because circumcision is performed on a minor for non-clinical reasons, and is potentially without net clinical benefit for the child … After extensive review of the literature the RACP does not recommend that routine circumcision in infancy be performed, but accepts that parents should be able to make this decision with their doctors. One reasonable option is for routine circumcision to be delayed until males are old enough to make an informed choice."

Discover's Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest science news delivered weekly right to your inbox!

Discoblog

Quirky, funny, and surprising science news from the edge of the known universe.

About ncbi rofl

NCBI ROFL is the brainchild of two Molecular and Cell Biology graduate students at UC Berkeley and features real research articles from the PubMed database (which is housed by the National Center for Biotechnology information, aka NCBI) that they find amusing (ROFL is a commonly-used internet acronym for "rolling on the floor, laughing").
Follow us on twitter: @ncbirofl